9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. KS/159/DAMAN/2006, dated 30-6-2006. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration is the appellants manufactured both dutiable as well as exempted final products by using the common inputs. Appellant cleared a part of their final product in the month of February, 2001 at nil rate of duty to the Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, appellants preferred an appeal. The first appellate authority after considering the submissions made before him did not agree with the appellants on the merit of the case but allowed the appeal filed by the appellant on the limitation, holding that the appellant had filed the monthly returns before the concerned lower authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel on the other hand would submit that the monthly returns which were filed before the authorities clearly indicated that they have cleared these consignments by availing benefit of the notifications and did not pay any duty. Revenue authorities should have asked these questions at that time which they failed to do so and hence learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in passing the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n raised by CERA authorities. It is undisputed by the revenue authorities in their grounds of appeal that the appellant had filed the monthly returns during the relevant period i.e. for the month of February, 2001 and in that they have indicated clearances of finished product at nil rate of duty. This would indicate that the respondent had followed the law of filing the returns with the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
